H C Agarwal1, V Gulati, R Sihota. 1. Dr. Rajendra Prasad Centre for Ophthalmic Sciences, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi-110 029, India.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the detection and assessment of progression of visual field defects in primary open-angle glaucoma withmanual suprathreshold perimetry on Goldmann perimeter and automated static threshold perimetry on Humphery visual field (HVF) analyzer. METHODS:105 eyes of 54 patients of primary open-angle glaucoma were followed up with 3-monthly perimetry on Goldmann perimeter and HVF analyzer, for a period of 9 months. RESULTS:HVF analyzer picked up visual field defects in 48 (46%) eyes whereas Goldmann perimeter picked up visual field defects in 26 (25%) eyes. HVF analyzer demonstrated progression in 14 eyes whereas Goldmann perimeter detected progression in 7 eyes during follow up of 9 months. CONCLUSIONS:HVF analyzer is superior to Goldmann perimeter to document and to demonstrate progression of visual field defects in primary open-angle glaucoma.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the detection and assessment of progression of visual field defects in primary open-angle glaucoma with manual suprathreshold perimetry on Goldmann perimeter and automated static threshold perimetry on Humphery visual field (HVF) analyzer. METHODS: 105 eyes of 54 patients of primary open-angle glaucoma were followed up with 3-monthly perimetry on Goldmann perimeter and HVF analyzer, for a period of 9 months. RESULTS: HVF analyzer picked up visual field defects in 48 (46%) eyes whereas Goldmann perimeter picked up visual field defects in 26 (25%) eyes. HVF analyzer demonstrated progression in 14 eyes whereas Goldmann perimeter detected progression in 7 eyes during follow up of 9 months. CONCLUSIONS: HVF analyzer is superior to Goldmann perimeter to document and to demonstrate progression of visual field defects in primary open-angle glaucoma.
Authors: Mathilde Grosselin; Leila Bouazzi; Thomas Ferreira de Moura; Carl Arndt; Maxime Thorigny; Stéphane Sanchez; Alexandre Denoyer Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 3.390